I am the director of the Tax Policy Center (TPC), Paul Volcker Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Center for Policy Research. My research focuses on federal tax and budget policy. In 2002, I co-founded the TPC. I served several stints in government, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis at the US Treasury and Senior Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. I was president of the National Tax Association from 2010-2011. I have a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Minnesota and a B.A. from Wesleyan University. I have four adult kids and am married to my college sweetheart, Missie Burman. I'm an avid bicyclist and sing baritone in the Syracuse Oratorio Society. I also like to cook.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

About Mitt Romney's $5 Trillion Tax Cut

Here’s Governor Romney at last night’s debate, responding to President Obama’s critique of his tax plan:

First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.

…

I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one. So there’s no economist that can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Okay. Now we know that Gov. Romney’s tax plan does not call for a $5 trillion tax cut. Which means that we now officially know nothing at all about Mitt Romney’s tax plan.

Previously, Governor Romney has said that his tax plan would cut all individual income tax rates by 20%, eliminate the AMT, eliminate the estate tax, and eliminate taxes on investment income for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would also extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.

Those tax cuts would reduce federal revenues by $480 billion in 2015 over and above the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts. Allow for some growth in income, and the total comes to over $5 trillion over ten years.

Gov. Romney also has a super-secret plan to close loopholes and deductions on high-income taxpayers to make up the lost revenue without raising taxes on low- and middle-income households. Efforts by the Tax Policy Center to test whether such a plan might exist have been met with furious criticism from the Romney campaign and its allies, Through several iterations, the critique has been: (1) that’s not our plan, and (2) we won’t tell you what the plan actually is.

On Tuesday, there was a hint of specificity. Governor Romney floated a trial balloon: he’d pay for his tax cuts by capping deductions at $17,000. As I pointed out yesterday, that plan probably doesn’t work either in the sense that it will either (a) add to the deficit, or (b) raise taxes on middle-income households, both of which the Romney camp has strenuously disavowed. Of course, it’s hard to tell what that plan would or would not do because again there are no details. I assume that if the TPC tried to analyze it, Romney would reply that (1) that’s not our plan, and (2) we won’t tell you what the plan actually is.

In fact, it’s pretty clear that even Gov. Romney doesn’t know what this incarnation of his secret plan is. Last night, he said:

And I’m going to work together with Congress to say, OK, what — what are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance? One way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That’s one way one could do it.

So the deduction threshold is not necessarily $17,000. It is “make up a number.” That’s helpful.

The bottom line is that we have no idea how Gov. Romney will make up the revenue lost due to the tax cuts he has specified in some detail. Obviously, Gov. Romney doesn’t either. The odd thing is that he seems to think that this is irrelevant.

It sounds like some sort of confidence game.

Romney to typical millionaire: ”Hey there. Have I got a deal for you! How would you like to save a quarter million bucks in 2015? Sounds good, doesn’t it?”

Millionaire: ”Uh, sure. What do I have to do to get the quarter million bucks?”

Romney: ”Hey, don’t worry about that. Those are just details. Sign here.”

My guess is that the Romney behind Bain Capital would never have fallen for that scam. Why does he think the voters should?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Less of an explanation and more of a critique without true facts, yeah I get it you don’t like Romney now tell me how to fix the economy. Obviously Obama and his lack of any plan has not worked in 4 years, since we haven’t had any budget for those years except for the 2008′s budget proposed by Bush. I would rather have someone with an idea on getting people together to fix the economy than people just talking about the how it won’t work. I know what isn’t working right now.

There’s been a lot of talk in the campaigns of both candidates regarding “God”, the “Constitution” and “Taxes”.

Alas, the media has failed to pressure either candidate to reveal what the future of IRC 107 might have in the next administration.

IRC 107 is the law that allows ONLY “ministers” to have unlimited income tax free money as long as they use it for housing. It’s been administratively extended to all sorts of employees who want to register as “ministers” (e.g., basketball coaches at private schools like Pepperdine University).

The problems with IRC 107 (constitutional and administrative) could have been fixed a long time ago, but Congress and the President have, historically, shown no political will to do so.

Now, the FFRF is pressing the issue by having filed suit in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of the law. Will we have to wait years for that litigation to be resolved judicially; or will Congress and the President act in the next administration to fix the problems with IRC 107?

Romney also kept mentioning Trickle Down tied to Obama which Obama is NOT for. I think the people hosting these debates need to have air horns for them to not repeat things that aren’t true against one another once they’ve had a chance to rebut…

Famed economist Arthur Laffer (Former economic advisor to President Reagan) refutes Obama’s claims of Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut and explains the steps the United States needs to take in order to continue on the road to economic recovery: http://bit.ly/WR6Wge

I guess that Romney is counting on the 47% to be total idiots and the remaining 53% to be like zombies. The guy is just a plane thief, lier, and is only in it for personal gain. He is as evil and vile as a man can get. A wolf is sheep clothing.